Album Rating: 2.0
'There's nothing to be suspicious of here; casey is a phenomenal songwriter. It has nothing to do with being progressive for the sake of it.'
Like i said that wasn't my complaint here, that's more reserved for something like the Thank You Scientist.
The second sentence of that comment explained why this isn't my bag. A 2/5 is my respectful 'it's not bad, there's talent on display, but it's not to my taste' rating a lot of the time (like here).
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.4
Who the hell are Thank You Scientist and why are we talking about them in the TDH thread
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
Ah stuff like this I come to because of the chart - if something has a really high average the least I can do is give it a listen or two. That album and this are both in the top 4 I think. Both acts love genre shifting too.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.4
Right, maybe I should check them then, in fairness I am somewhat (read: very) biased towards this because I've been listening to them since I was 10 and there's a lot of gratification in hearing a concept wrapped up so well after all that time
|
| |
Thank You Scientist are kind of like Coheed and Cambria + Ska punk. they make it work
and I need to check these guys out more. Colour Spectrum is a brilliant project imo
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
TYS was pretty bland and overdone imo
Heard the first half of this and it sounded like a return to form
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Listen to Maps of Non-Existent Places.
Doof, some of your ratings are mind-boggling, if not downright offensive.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
i agree with the thank you scientist comment (coming from someone with an eternal, monumental, firm boner for both coheed and TDH). the songwriting doesn't make sense to me. i won't deny that they have good ideas though.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
A 2/5 can't really be offensive - I mean it's the most polite option for saying you don't like an album numerically available to me :D
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
I'd give that a 2.5 or 3 personally. 2 means "poor" to me which is, I think, implying that the album is not very well-made "objectively", not that it just isn't to my tastes.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Well, a rating is a rating and that's always something subjective. But yes, usually when people on this site give something lower than a 2.5, it's because they think it's pretty bad. He has every right to have that opinion, but sometimes you have to make the proper judgment on whether it's just not your type of music or actually inherently flawed by your standards. Those are two different concepts that people tend to forget.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
this is so good ahhhh
|
| |
I'd give that a 2.5 or 3 personally. 2 means "poor" to me which is, I think, implying that the album is not very well-made "objectively", not that it just isn't to my tastes. [2]
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
[3]
|
| |
[4]
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.7
The Moon is a great song. I'm really liking this so far, but I still haven't jammed Acts III or IV. I'll probably go through their whole discography soon.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
ratings are entirely subjective
competence starts at a rating of 1, at least for me, that's the 'objective' part - I've said it before, I'm not a record exec, that stage has been completed (or not in the era of the Internet, see below)
if something is incompetent PLUS I didn't enjoy it then I'd like to award it a 0/5, I mean who honestly wouldn't in that scenario?
|
| |
I'm too daunted by this being the fifth act of a series to even give this a listen
|
| |
listen to acts I through IV first!
|
| |
I'm not willing to commit myself to that
|
| |
|
|
